An incorrigible Cognitive Dissident

Hobson’s Choice in the UK: is Momentum socialism that different to corporate globalism?

What do you do when your homeland is being run by wannabe corporate fascists, and the Opposition has been captured by media-savvy Stalinists? (Answer: speak the Truth from a safe distance)

In 1978, I founded an advertising agency with four other partners. While it gained some foreign (Swedish, French, US and Greek) clients, one of its fundamental principles on opening was an implacable opposition to global campaigns, and the ideas of globalism being put forward by Theodore Levitt. Nearly forty years on, I still think we were right; but while I applaud others trying to make the same point, I am at times baffled by their methods.

Outside the G20 session this morning, protesters gathered to make their feelings against globalism known. Good for them: the case against globalism – moral, financial, cultural, social, commercial and geopolitical – is overwhelming. But having checked across a wide range of media, I have to assume that this report in USA Today is correct:

‘….Anti-globalization activists in Germany’s second largest city set dozens of cars ablaze ……dozens of police were injured.’

If one genuinely wants to persuade those in the middle ground that neocon globalism is a con in search of a rationale, then burning cars and baiting cops is not the place to start. Such agitprop crap stands not the remotest chance of persuading anyone outside of the usual suspects….who are already converted anyway.

To be honest, these days I have profound doubts about ‘demos’ per se. The entire model smacks of 1970s hairies, placarded commands, struggling police cordons, flying pickets, and the intolerant Hard Left. But add casually anarchic violence to that image, and you will be off the radar of those who really can help your cause faster than you can yell “Smash capitalism!” Such actions are a free gift to those media determined to keep the powerful in power.

The suspicion of those with a balanced brain is that the “issue” at stake in the demo is really just part of a much bigger agenda called collectivist ideology. There is no shortage of evidence to solidify that suspicion: Greenpeace was founded (and is still run) by Leftists who have simply rebranded themselves ‘green’ as opposed to ‘red’. Trace through the careers of those behind ‘Peace’ flotillas for Gaza, and the same cv’s keep popping up: ‘activist’, Socialist Workers Party’, ‘Anti-Nazi League’ and so forth.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that such people want “democratic change”….up to but not including the ballot box. Last year, Momentum (the new-media savvy group that masterminded Jeremy Corbyn’s rise from the ashes) quietly dropped its clause ruling out violence as a means of protest. The rationale for it – classic revolutionary double-think – could not hide the fact that those who pushed for its vapourisation had a background of infiltration into the Parliamentary Left via the Hard Left.

To those who don’t know me, the expression of those realities could come across as classic Tory black arts. But this isn’t Daily Mail stuff: after the results of the recent UK General Election were announced, the same orchestrated Momentum followers tweeting for Corbyn the Messiah were announcing that their guy had been “cheated” of victory, and thus they reserved the right to resort to violence.

The real reason Labour lost was continuing doubts among Middle Englanders about the history and motives behind Corbynite Labour…..and the Party’s blanket unwillingness to engage with non-Party sympathisers. I accept entirely the premise that the Conservative Party has not so much lurched as jumped way too far to the Right. And I buy into the role of First Past the Post as one of the main reasons why the more criminal of its MPs have been allowed so much access to power. But Labour – with or without Corbyn – has never shown the slightest interest in reforming FPTP; and it is Labour who has been the Party ever-prone to undemocratic infiltration.

Further evidence of that is now trickling out. Over the last few days, the ugly shape of active MP-deselection has once more slithered over the horizon. Despite the best efforts of those genuinely trying to give the poor, old and weak in Britain a better chance, the motormouth ideologues simply cannot resist the desire to keep pushing.

As ever, move uses hooray-terms like “further democratisation of the Party” to fend off the discovery of MP hitlists. But the whole concept of active deselection is anti-democratic – a hardline socialist attempt to hand power to a clique takeover at local level, spit in the face of the electorate, and then replace a representative MP with an extremist….standing under the false flag ‘Labour’.

The last time this creeping Bolshevism started, the group behind it was called Militant.

Momentum has, within its walls, Socialist Workers Party revolutionaries advocating violence. Demonstrations in recent years have shown a preponderance of SWP placards time and time again.

Momentum is, I’m afraid, a slightly cleaned up Militant for the 21st Century. They are the people who, the day after Jo Cox’s death, sought out UKIP canvassers to harangue with show-trial screams of “Murderers!” They call political opponents ‘scum’. And they invite confrontation with the police in order to position themselves as victims of oppression, entitled to fight fire with fire.

So here I sit in France, a refugee from this Britain I once knew, a Blighty now descending into uncivil politics, civil strife, and perhaps even civil war. OK, ‘refugee’ is somewhat melodramatic: there are worse ways to grow old than the lifestyle I enjoy at the minute.

But the truly depressing thing about politics throughout the West now is the obvious fact that it has been flooded with counterfeit currency. Worse still, the electorates clamour to use that currency, with little or no evidence to suggest any awareness among their number of its worthless nature.

Everywhere there is fear. And fear drives people to the familiar. But this is one of those rare epochs where the familiar is fake – a clapped-out old prostitute caked in make-up, trying to persuade the desperate that there is anything other than decay beneath the cover-up.

Oh God, I am going to have to put a full comment as a seperate blog for reference, it is too long for here.

This is regards the meaning of national, how previous consumed definition was arrogated by UK government, to become discretionary to its authority. It is not about naturalization per se, but the reality that lawmakers have taken upon themselves to supply the definition, politicize it, pit one against other, create insecurity in society. If you thought you were British and that was that, think again, at least in terms of official recognition. The action takes place at the margin, where we were left, creating the need for research and understanding.

In short, the imperial/ liberal reality took its present direction at the turn of 1900, both in UK constitutional law, budget matters, royal affiliation to certain influences, the entente with France that drew UK into WW1. The repeal of 7 Anne C.5 in 1914 opened the way for identity management, closing out the commonwealth, social and economic integration into EEC by purposefully coinciding right of abode rules to suit the new labour market created. The removal of certainty of nationality , and Immigration policy, are all related. The understanding of the meaning of being British, not by conquered dominion but by merging the royal concept of descent into national law for common people, in 1708, was ‘taken back’, the agreement quietly broken. If you look at UK political direction since 1900 you will see that it is very consistently towards a centralized European axis of command.

So do not be surprised if the current political show turns out to be just that. The end result, with enormous leverage continuously piled on, was ‘decided’ long ago.

Another incisive, and depressingly accurate, analysis Mr Ward. I confess that I am disinclined to vote in national elections, either in the USA, or the UK (I know, I know…people have fought and have died in order to obtain that right for us etc.) I am only inclined to exercise my voting franchise in order to try to keep from power a figure like Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, I tend to vote against a leader (or party), rather than for same. As my wife’s son used to be fond of telling me, “If you don’t vote, you can’t change anything”. Well, true to some extent…but experience has shown me that if you do vote, you can’t change anything either ! I agree with Mr Sanders that nothing will change unless we can somehow take the money out of politics, and with yourself, that governance should be at a much more local and human scale ( maybe something along the lines of anarcho-syndicalist ideas). Besides the corrupting influence of money and corporate lobbyists, I feel that education, or lack thereof, is a big part of the problem. People are taught to conform to society’s utterly corrupt and immoral behaviours. They are not taught to think critically, for themselves, and to question, probe or test what they are spoon fed by the establishment (which, of course, would be dangerous). And it is much easier and safer to follow, and toe the line. Education should encourage questioning, doubt and individual personal responsibility. I well remember at the time of the Falklands conflict a work colleague saying: “Well, it’s not up to me, is it?” To which I replied” “Well then…to whom is it up ?” somewhat sarcastically. The point I am trying to make is that most people do not feel responsible for the world, or the state it’s in. The buck stops elsewhere. Something is very wrong with the notion that we all vote every 4 or 5 years, depending on the country, and its political system, and then after that, the leaders can just blow up the whole world and everything in it ! And somehow, it’s not our business any more ! Leaders require followers…and to be a follower is to be a sheep. That is the crux of the problem. People are content to be ‘shepherded’ by those in power (after all, they wear fancy uniforms, have fancy titles etc. Why do we think that the world is not OUR responsibility ? We are, I believe, sleepwalking into Armageddon. Therefore, power has to be limited power, on small scale, and at a local level. Just my opinion.

Thanks for the response, JW, which I read over morning coffee. More food for thought. Agreed on individual freedoms and social cohesion- signs of pauperisation abound and few are yet aware that it is happening; Naivety or denialism. People are quickly running out of time to shake the bonds of enslavement.
—————————-

to me ‘capitalism in equilibrium’ would be a fabulous improvement on what we now have.. heck any bankruptcy of any large unaccountable mega-outfits would be positive.. but its not going to happen because they are tbtf…

We vote local elections to elect councillors and that is the democractic act.

Now replace the system with this.

Those democratically elected councillors pick one from amongst themselves to represent the constituency in parliament. If the one sitting in parliament reveals themself to be not fit for the job the councillors can meet and remove the chosen councillor electing another from amongst themselves.

Some of the bonuses of such a system is any one deprived area with a councillor can now affect those who go to parliament. The major parties must now engage at the local level to get to parliament not just buy and promote a single MP in a constituency.

Reckon it would work myself and the democracy you dream of is now devolved down to the local level and as we see a current undemocratic globalist parliament is effectively injected with the democracy it sorely needs. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

The left you mention use fear to get what they want, no different to the right who are lambasted by the media because the media support the left. The left as they are behaving now with a neutered right created the social imbalance. The left then use this acquired power to drive their never ending demands not by democracy but by tyranny.

Democracy is the biggest lie right now on both sides, championing it by name but actually practicing tyranny.

I am not sure the world has changed that much, Mr W. It is just that as you get older, the ability to ignore uncomfortable truths becomes more difficult, as you have lived long enough to have evidence from within your lifetime. The young must usually take it on trust.

Empires are built and collapsed. Only the site of Empire rule changes, from Rome, to various competing capitals in Europe, to Washington, then to Beijing.

The competition between autocracy and democracy is as old as the hills. Royal families exist, family dictatorships exist, puppet masters pulling strings were written about by Shakespeare to describe plotters overthrowing Caesar for being too powerful.

Messiahs to enfeeble the masses’ ability for critical thought are religions, green movements, now new political parties. As old as the hills.

After all, the bible wrote ‘there is nothing new under the sun’, even if new forms of old structures emerge.

If the yearning for utopia were delivered, would humans stop breeding?

Good stuff John. But how has the Tory party jumped to the Right?
All I see is authoritarian soft leftism. There has been no shrinking of the state and tax cuts have been targetted towards the low paid.

———————–
Just – I suppose the only just thing to do re that statement is we’ll just have to agree to disagree. JW

Wonderful piece. But why, how, were the five of you able to agree on implacable opposition to global campaigns? What did you sense was the problem with going global? It seems obvious now, but in 1978?

———————————–

A very fair and astute question.

It started from a communications perspective and just grew. There was a lot of global advertising around already: stuff made in Paris or Chicago and then dubbed, no sign of an idea in it and completely insensitive to the local markets. It was working because it had massive amounts of dollars behind it, not because it had any cut-through creatively. Also, most global agencies knew nothing about direct marketing, tactical local media, sales promotion, ambient media, PR and point-of-sale. Most importantly, they employed 3rd rate hacks as creative people.

Our pitch was better ads and harder-working forms of publicity in one package: we were effectively the first “360 degrees” comms agency. But also we were after a niche of medium-sized clients who needed better ideas because they had smaller budgets…and the ‘brand leader’ at the time was Saatchi & Saatchi – spouting drivel about globalism, and altogether at the peak of their hubris. So we decided to be diametrically different. Being rude about the brand leader is a very good way to raise your profile….and everyone likes an underdog.

As time went on however, it also began to dawn on us that globally developed products had limited appeal, and a lot of what Ted Levitt asserted was FOS: the Global Village was a myth, and still is. But it wasn’t until I left the business (in 2000) that I began to look closely at the financial power, fiscal muscle, and accountancy-led thinking of these multinationals – plus the egos, criminality, and offshore workers elements that were utterly socially dysfunctional.

My opposition to neoliberal imperial globalism has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with individual freedom, creativity and social cohesion. It has to be stopped, before it pauperises and enslaves all of us. Sadly, Leftist ideologues are just as international and systemic in their outlook: the Stalinist cares to the same extent about human beings as the CEO of Coca Cola – not at all. JW

Food for thought indeed…
Is part of the problem that too many of us operate in an echo chamber?
Are we only engaging with media which more or less reflects our own existing views?
Is the relentless news cycle dulling our critical faculties?
Would we be better informed and better off watching kitten videos on YouTube?

I have very fond memories of Militant from my youth as I was a member of it. Michael Foot was our donkey jacketed messiah and Tony Benn the Godhead. They both made very principled arguments against Capitalism and came out with some lousy solutions. The actual schism in the Labour Party is over funding, the left want the unions to do it whilst the others want to be owned by the same money men as the Tories.

At least we have a choice these days just not a very good one. If that doesn’t sum up our current version of Capitalism i don’t know what does.